linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/6] irqchip: add the Alpine MSIX interrupt controller

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <56B8A638.1040903@arm.com>
Date:	Mon, 8 Feb 2016 14:29:12 +0000
From:	Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
To:	Antoine Tenart <antoine.tenart@...e-electrons.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:	jason@...edaemon.net, tsahee@...apurnalabs.com,
	rshitrit@...apurnalabs.com, thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] irqchip: add the Alpine MSIX interrupt controller

On 08/02/16 14:17, Antoine Tenart wrote:
> Thomas,
> 
> On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 11:31:47AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Mon, 8 Feb 2016, Antoine Tenart wrote:
>>> +static int alpine_msix_set_affinity(struct irq_data *irq_data,
>>> +				    const struct cpumask *mask, bool force)
>>> +{
>>> +	int ret;
>>> +
>>> +	ret = irq_chip_set_affinity_parent(irq_data, mask, force);
>>> +	return ret == IRQ_SET_MASK_OK ? IRQ_SET_MASK_OK_DONE : ret;
>>
>> What's the point of this exercise? Why can't you just set the affinity
>> callback to irq_chip_set_affinity_parent() ?
> 
> That's what done in irq-gic-v2m.c. Besides that, I see no point. I'll
> update for v2.

That's because there is no need to do another compose_msi_msg/write_msg
in msi_domain_set_affinity() once the affinity has been updated at the
GIC level. Alternatively, updating the GIC driver to always return
IRQ_SET_MASK_OK_DONE would be perfectly acceptable.

Thanks,

	M.
-- 
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...